[opendtv] Re: B&C: FTC Could Cast Antitrust Gaze on Big Tech
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:04:19 -0500
Another entirely predictable story, with each side taking the expected
positions. Fortunately the adults in the room are likely to prevail...
On Feb 14, 2018, at 2:58 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Which is in the FTC's charter, and quite irrelevant to the issue of mandated
telecom neutrality. One would be hard pressed to demonstrate that lack of
telecom competition exists because of unfair anti-competitive practices, on
the part of telecom companies. More like, unwillingness to invest big money
where returns are small. The government cannot fault companies for that!
There is no mandated telecom neutrality anymore Bert, outside the now
antiquated POTS services that are rapidly disappearing. The telecom industry
has largely been deregulated, and is now MORE NEUTRAL than at any time in
history.
We have four major competitors that offer nationwide cellular service. They
share infrastructure and lease this infrastructure to MVNOs. We have a large
number of VOIP competitors who have full access to the POTS networks.
The issue is not neutrality Bert. It is a broken regulatory system that seeks
to choose winners and losers, while ignoring real misbehavior.
As for the willingness to invest, we see many of the same issues. The USF did
what was intended - it brought telephony to rural markets. But the program has
been corrupted and used to promote broadband deployment with limited success.
Why? Simply stated: corruption. This is the nature of government programs run
by regulatory agencies that manage monopolies.
The government CAN play a role in the development of infrastructure in markets
where the economic incentive is limited or non-existent. That has not happened
effectively with the USF and the Connect America Fund. It is not a matter of a
lack of resources - it is a problem with the management of these resources.
Thankfully, with adults in charge of the FCC again, we may see some real
progress in this area.
"Ranking member Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) used the hearing to put in a plug
for net neutrality, or more to the point, a knock on the FCC's deeding of net
neutrality oversight primarily to the FTC when it reclassified broadband
access as a Title I information service in the Dec. 14 Restoring Internet
Freedom Order.
"Simply put, the FTC is not the agency for net neutrality," he said, adding
that despite the amazing things the FTC does, it "does not have the
expertise, resources or authority to adopt forward-looking rules to protect
broadband consumers."
Senator Nelson is clueless. He continues to promote the notion that we need to
prevent “Paid Prioritization,” despite the fact that the modern internet cannot
function without it. He continues to promote the use of the CRA to overturn the
recent FCC Net Neutrality order, despite the fact that there is ZERO chance
that Congress and the President will overturn the FCC decision.
He is complete WRONG about the ability of the FTC to deal with Net Neutrality
issues as defined in the recent FCC order. The FTC had NO PROBLEM dealing with
these issues prior to the Title II order, and they will have no problem dealing
with any violation moving forward.
It is very informative to look at the title of this article, and the coverage
of the hearing. The real story is the misbehavior of large Internet Edge
Providers, over which the FCC has NO AUTHORITY. It makes far more sense to have
one agency with the legal authority to use the law to deal with misbehavior by
any company that touches the Internet. Unfortunately, it is the law that is
deficient here.
You did not quote one of the most important comments by Senator Nelson:
Nelson said to look out for a Senate vote on the Congressional Review Act
resolution to nullify that Restoring Internet Freedom order and return the
Title II-based rules. He said his support for the CRA is not inconsistent
with his belief that there needs to be a bipartisan legislative long-term
solution with real protections.
The ball is squarely in the hands of the legislative branch. We need to
thoroughly air the debate about what kind of government oversight - if any - is
needed for the Internet. And this debate needs to include EVERY aspect of the
Internet, not just the ISP component, over which the FCC has attempted to exert
its authority.
As the article points out, there is growing consensus that the FTC needs to
investigate the behavior of Edge Services, and determine whether anti-trust law
should be employed to deal with their misbehavior, both as it relates to
anti-competitive issues and neutrality issues.
And it's not just a matter of "expertise." It's a matter of not having any
leverage. The FTC is only worrying about anti-trust and about the companies
disclosing their service policies. No one is telling the FTC to enforce
neutrality of the telecoms.
Because there has been little if any evidence of non-neutral behavior by the
telecoms and cable companies. The progressive position is based entirely on the
POTENTIAL THREATS to Net Neutrality, even as Edge Providers routinely violate
the most basic tenets of neutrality.
So, they are talking about entirely different things, and the FCC Chairman
has been using this FTC business as just another one of his "distracting
attention" tactics.
NO Bert, these issues are intimately related. We have argued about this for
years. Your cannot ignore bad behavior by one set of special interests, while
putting handcuffs on potential competitors who MIGHT misbehave in the future.
The FTC DID deal effectively with the issues that arose over two decades while
the Internet culture was developing. The Title II decision had NOTHING to do
with stopping blocking and throttling which was not happening. It had
everything to do with an administration that spent eight years promulgating
oppressive regulations, and grabbing the opportunity to regulate the Internet
against the will of the legislative branch.
"Thune added a 'here, here' to that call for bipartisan solution, saying,
'Hopefully, we will be able to get there in due time.'"
A reasonable Republican voice? Wow. Let's hope. (But by the way, that's
"hear, hear." It comes for the UK Parliament. It means, "listen up, I agree.")
No Bert. Congress already told governments at all levels to keep their hands
off the Internet in 1996. The current debate is based in THE FACT that this was
ignored and the courts have muddied the waters. Yes we need legislative
finality here, as is the case with MANY issues that Congress has ignored for
decades like the current immigration debate.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: